Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Wang, Yaxuan; Chang, Xueliang; Li, Jingdong; Han, Zhenwei.
  • Wang, Yaxuan; Hebei Medical University. The Second Hospital. Department of Urology. Shijiazhuang. CN
  • Chang, Xueliang; Hebei Medical University. The Second Hospital. Department of Urology. Shijiazhuang. CN
  • Li, Jingdong; Hebei Medical University. The Second Hospital. Department of Urology. Shijiazhuang. CN
  • Han, Zhenwei; Hebei Medical University. The Second Hospital. Department of Urology. Shijiazhuang. CN
Int. braz. j. urol ; 46(6): 902-926, Nov.-Dec. 2020. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1134269
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Purpose Various surgical options are available for large proximal ureteral stones, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU). However, the best option remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm to address current research deficiencies. Materials and methods We searched PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to June 2019), as well as citation lists to identify eligible comparative studies. All clinical studies including patients comparing surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm were included. A standard network meta-analysis was performed with Stata SE 14 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) software to generate comparative statistics. The quality was assessed with level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software. Results A total of 25 studies including 2.888 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Network meta-analyses indicated that LU and PCNL had better stone-free rates and auxiliary procedures. PCNL could result in major complications and severe bleeding. In initial stone-free rate, final stone-free rate, and auxiliary procedures results, SUCRA ranking was LU> PCNL> URSL> ESWL. In Clavien Dindo score ≥3 complications, SUCRA ranking was LU> ESWL> URSL> PCNL. In fever, SUCRA ranking was ESWL> LU> URSL> PCNL. In transfusion, SUCRA ranking was LU> URSL> ESWL> PCNL. In Cluster analysis, LU had the highest advantages and acceptable side effects. Considering the traumatic nature of PCNL, it should not be an option over URSL. ESWL had the lowest advantages. Conclusions LU have the potential to be considered as the first treatment choice of proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Ureteral Calculi Type of study: Prognostic study / Systematic reviews Limits: Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Int. braz. j. urol Journal subject: Urology Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: China Institution/Affiliation country: Hebei Medical University/CN

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Ureteral Calculi Type of study: Prognostic study / Systematic reviews Limits: Humans / Male Language: English Journal: Int. braz. j. urol Journal subject: Urology Year: 2020 Type: Article Affiliation country: China Institution/Affiliation country: Hebei Medical University/CN